Jimquisition: When Piracy Becomes Theft

[SonOfVoorhees]

Urgh, people still trying to argue that piracy is not theft again?

Definitions are pointless, they were created before the digital era even began. Yes, it's not physically stealing a product, but you are stealing a service. It's like going into a massage parlor and leaving before you pay a check. If that's not called theft, then it should be. I don't care about technicalities, you are a criminal if you play games you didn't pay for (I make exceptions for games that are far out of print or from developers that don't exist anymore, those titles need to stay alive regardless of ethics).

Just cut it out with the justifications. If you hate a developer then don't even play the damn game, have a backbone for gods sake.

Wish i wrote what you wrote. Its perfect. Thefts will come up with reasons why its ok. Like a burglar will rob you and say its because he is feeding his kids. It is what it is no matter how its dressed up.

 

[Epona]

When did theft come to mean that somebody lost something?

You go in and add a bunch of zeros to your bank balance, then buy a bunch of games on debit.
The bank didn't lose anything, no physical object was transferred, the store got paid. Are we going to argue there was no theft there.

Theft has been widely understood, since basically the dawn of history, of someone taking something that doesn't belong to them.

That the other person no longer had it was simply a side-effect of physical reality, but was never the point of theft.

Not until pirates started thinking, "How do I justify my douche-baggery?" anyway.

You need to re-examine your example. How did the bank lose nothing AND the store get paid?

I've bolded the part you need to read.

Try to follow along. I will type slowly.

If you go add a bunch of zeros to your bank account balance and then go shopping, one of two things happen:

- Bank pays for the stuff you bought, bank loses money.
- Bank refuses to pay, store loses merchandise.

Either way, it's theft because someone loses something.

 

[Azuaron]

I liked the original intro myself...

Yeah, same here.

I do agree with this though, fuck the big companies, but the indis shouldnt have to deal with that, I may never play it but I am gona go buy that serious sam game just because it had an awesome commercial and I respect the dev.

(You specific) die in a fire. I (specific) don't care WHO puts out the whatever, they (specific) need money to make the games/movies/books/whatever you (general) want, and you (general) are a pedophile burglar if you (general) don't give it to them (specific) simply because they (specific) are "big". If they (specific) are DRMing the Hell out of it or not making it available conveniently, then we (general) get into a gray area, but if they (specific) are putting out a DRM-free, non-region locked, easily available product, you (general) better (wo-)man up and pay the company (specific).

I actually buy all my games and ignore those with horrible DRM and what not, but good job violating the terms of service by calling me names!

Though I do agree, HBO are kinda douchebags, I resent having to get cable just to watch that damn show.

To be clear, while I did tell you, specifically, to die in a fire (a heartfelt command, not a threat; you may rest easy in your anonymity), the rest of my use of "you" (including when I used the insult "pedophile burglar") was meant as the general "you" that applies to anyone reading my comment who held a certain belief, including, but not limited to, you (specific) if you hold the stated belief. Like, if I said, "You're a pedophile burglar if you steal Baldur's Gate discs from babies with sickle cell anemia." That may or may not apply to you (specific), and I'm certainly not limiting the insult to just you (specific) regardless of its specific applicability.

Or like when you (specific) say "fuck the big companies," you don't actually mean to command readers of your comment to rape people who work for big companies, you instead want the implied meaning of the phrase to be understood.

I have updated the quoted portion of my comment to make explicit what was previously implied.

That being said, considering the topic of this video and Jim's use of (and imploring commands for the use of) "pedophile burglar", even if I did call you (specifically) a pedophile burglar I don't think it would violate the Escapist's TOS given the context.

 

[Stickfigure]

Terminology is important even if you aren't in a courtroom.

Perhaps, but language (at least english) is generally a fluid concept that is given to redefinition over time. e.g. "Hacker" no longer simply implies a technology enthusiast, but can also imply someone who uses that enthusiasm with malicious intent, provided proper context is given. "Fag" can be a cigarette, or it can be a pejorative.

Contextually, most people can separate the theft involved in knocking over a bank with the "theft" of taking art and media without permission and distributing it without compensation. There's moral ambiguity to it, perhaps; but the same could be said about stealing bread to feed one's family (to use an extreme example). But the use of the word outside of an intent to charge seems like an overly sensitive topic when the spirit of the act is fairly similar. "Theft" doesn't define intent or cause, it simply describes the act in a way that allows others to understand. So why raise a fuss?

 

[Epona]

Urgh, people still trying to argue that piracy is not theft again?

Definitions are pointless, they were created before the digital era even began. Yes, it's not physically stealing a product, but you are stealing a service. It's like going into a massage parlor and leaving before you pay a check. If that's not called theft, then it should be. I don't care about technicalities, you are a criminal if you play games you didn't pay for (I make exceptions for games that are far out of print or from developers that don't exist anymore, those titles need to stay alive regardless of ethics).

Just cut it out with the justifications. If you hate a developer then don't even play the damn game, have a backbone for gods sake.

Those people who pirate have no one to blame than themselves if the internet gets taken over by the government or corporations. Those guys are looking for any reason to do it, and you're all not helping. I'll know who to blame when we turn into China.

LOL @

Definitions are pointless

Great argument.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

You mean your own argument with the picture means nothing? I am glad you agree with me, it was your own fault for using it in the first place. I am glad you have learned something.

Sigh, i really regret answering you because some people dont lesson, or dont care. There are those pictures in public, you can use them, like some movies are free for people to use. No copyright...any one can watch and change them. Computer games are owned, are copyrighted. If you didnt buy it legally then your a pirate.

Maybe your stupid or maybe you just come up with reasons to combat your morals....like Jim did. I really hope you make a music CD or direct a movie and everyone pirates the crap out of it. An when your sitting in your basement wondering why your a failure you will know its because all those people didnt pay to see what you created.

 

[Raesvelg]

Urgh, people still trying to argue that piracy is not theft again?

They always will.

What irritates me is that it's fundamentally an argument over semantics. You've got the one side arguing that copyright infringement is not theft based on the "legal" definitions of the terms involved, i.e. if you get caught pirating movies you will be charged with copyright infringement, not theft.

And then you've got the other side arguing that under the broader definition of theft (ie, taking something that doesn't belong to you), it works just fine, thanks. Sure, you're not gonna be charged with theft if they catch you pirating.

But, let's be honest: you're still stealing shit.

 

[dbenoy]

Jim seems to be picking his morality the same way I pick my favorite color. He just takes the ones that feel right.

Of course, if someone chooses a different color than me, I don't advocate that they be punished. I don't declare my choice of color to be the true measure of right and wrong.

No; that's what principles are for. Determine what's right and what's wrong and apply those judgements consistently.

 

[tmande2nd]

Thank you Jim for saying that pirates are nothing more than cheap skates with no excuse who just want things for free.

You are not some Robin Hood figure out fighting the man.
You are taking a product and using it for free.

Theft is theft no matter what grand spin you try and place on it.
Even if a company is a dick like EA you dont have any right to play their games for free at all.

 

[Epona]

Terminology is important even if you aren't in a courtroom.

Perhaps, but language (at least english) is generally a fluid concept that is given to redefinition over time. e.g. "Hacker" no longer simply implies a technology enthusiast, but can also imply someone who uses that enthusiasm with malicious intent, provided proper context is given. "Fag" can be a cigarette, or it can be a pejorative.

Contextually, most people can separate the theft involved in knocking over a bank with the "theft" of taking art and media without permission and distributing it without compensation. There's moral ambiguity to it, perhaps; but the same could be said about stealing bread to feed one's family (to use an extreme example). But the use of the word outside of an intent to charge seems like an overly sensitive topic when the spirit of the act is fairly similar. "Theft" doesn't define intent or cause, it simply describes the act in a way that allows others to understand. So why raise a fuss?

Hacker has always meant the same, even when it was a Hollywood favorite. Fag has a different definition in different countries so let's not pretend it's interchangeable. If you are in the US, fag doesn't mean cigarette.

Stealing bread is still theft, it's just more justified than holding up a bank at gunpoint and shooting a clerk. Theft is theft and copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If they were the same then they would both have the same terminology. Terminology is so important, I don't think many people realize just how powerful words are. Take the word "rape", that word has more power than "forcible sex".

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Im ending this argument cos its semantics. Its like saying its ok to rape a prostitute but not someones mother. The crime is still bad but some think some victims are less than others.

Theft is theft regardless of all the sematics and reasons. Whether its a copy or a physical thing. You don't own it, you didn't buy it so it isn't yours legally. I know they just want free stuff, and i agree with them, free stuff is awesome. Just worthless arguing about things that no one will ever agree on.

 

[Naeras]

You can't pirate an ice cream sandwich, you can steal one and that's theft. Pirating software is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

For those who are confused about copyright infringement vs theft. Copyright Infringment means that only certain entities have the RIGHT to make COPIES of something, usually the publisher. Others who do it are infringing on the copyright as they are not legally allowed to make copies (outside of a legal backup). No matter how people try to twist it, it just isn't the same as walking into Wal Mart and stuffing a 360 game into your pants.

I didn't disagree with you at all, in case you missed the part of my post where I was saying that it doesn't change the argument here. I simply happen to agree with the main point of the video: people that pirate cheap-ass, consumer friendly indie games, games that often cost the same as an ice cream sandwich and doesn't require you to install bullshit software in order to "eat" it (hence the somewhat flawed analogy), are bigger assholes than people who pirate expensive-ass, DRM-laden games.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Ohhhh After Effects.

SOMEONE'S rolling in money

or they y'know pirated it...

Dont worry, Adobe wants the average consumer to pirate their software, the more people know how to work with their stuff the more companies will buy the licenses to use it since all their workers only know how to work with Adobe stuff.

Unless the company itself pirates the stuff. Which happens more often than people think. But you are right.

 

[Epona]

When did theft come to mean that somebody lost something?

You go in and add a bunch of zeros to your bank balance, then buy a bunch of games on debit.
The bank didn't lose anything, no physical object was transferred, the store got paid. Are we going to argue there was no theft there.

Theft has been widely understood, since basically the dawn of history, of someone taking something that doesn't belong to them.

That the other person no longer had it was simply a side-effect of physical reality, but was never the point of theft.

Not until pirates started thinking, "How do I justify my douche-baggery?" anyway.

You need to re-examine your example. How did the bank lose nothing AND the store get paid?

I've bolded the part you need to read.

Try to follow along. I will type slowly.

If you go add a bunch of zeros to your bank account balance and then go shopping, one of two things happen:

- Bank pays for the stuff you bought, bank loses money.
- Bank refuses to pay, store loses merchandise.

Either way, it's theft because someone loses something.

LOL, Christ, try getting a basic understanding of how banks work and what money is before attempting to be condescending. You'll still suck at it, but at least it won't be outright laughable.

Big hint: Money these days is primarily represented by data, and most of the money in our economy doesn't actually exist.. it's just one bank saying to another, we've got this much value. When you pay by debit, bits on one side of the transaction are decreased, bits on the other are increased. No "money" is transferred.

When you add bits to your account, no "money" is trasnferred. Nobody's losing anything. Just like piracy. If anything, the bank is *gaining* money, because according to their records, they now have more of these infinitely copiable bits to lend out.

Whatever, I doubt that anyone can just add zeros as they see fit and then go shopping and no one will lose anything. If that's your argument then what is stopping you from doing that?